Denard aiming to be an NFL QB
I searched and did not see this posted already. If I missed it, feel free to lambast me.
I like that Denard is gunning to be an NFL QB. Who knows if he can make it, but it certainly won't hurt his motivation to become the best passer he can be while at Michigan. Could you imagine if he becomes an accurate passer and an efficient manager of the offense? With his elusiveness as a runner? We'd be unstoppable.
"Manager of the offense" is an euphemism i wish would die a slow, painful death. It's a nicer way of saying "You suck." Reference: Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.
Was Pat White a "manager' of West Virginia's offense? Hell no. He was one of the lynchpins of that offense which made it almost unstoppable.
I am willing to take the bad, as in the occasional fumble and INT, with Denard because the upside is to the moon. Has Michigan had an ATHLETE this talented in the past 20 years? For sure, Graham or Woodson are comparable, but on offense, you have to go back to Wheatley.
Denard ran one play last year, over and over, and averaged 5 ypc, scoring a TD every 15 times he rushed the fall. If he gets the kind of carries we all think he should, that would be about 15 rushing TDs. It's also fair to say he is the biggest threat on the team to gain 1,000 rushing yards this year. I don't want him managing anything, I want him causing defenses to buckle under the weight of his awesomeness.
I don't want him managing anything, I want him causing defenses to buckle under the weight of his awesomeness.
I'd pay to see that happen.
Wait, I just did pay to see that happen.
Has Michigan had an ATHLETE this talented in the past 20 years?
Yes. Better. Charles Woodson. If Dilithium ends up playing both sides of the ball, special teams and wins the Heisman (oh, yeah, and becomes a standout in the NFL), then it will be reasonable to consider him as good or better than Woodson. Right now, it's not.
I never thought hoping that Denard becoming an "efficient manager of the offense" would be met with such hostility. As someone states below, "manager of the offense" could be said of Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, etc., etc..
QB's of course have a lot of responsibility for communicating with play callers, making adjustments, keeping track of the play clock, making sure that his teamates are in the correct position, etc.. These are all part of managing the offense, and that's what I meant when I said he needs to be an efficient game manager.
I think it is only a bad term if that is the only good thing you could say about the QB in question.
You sound just like OSU fans talking about Pryor. Not that I mean this in a bad way (nor am I in any way saying that Robinson is comparable to Pryor), but just an observation.
True, but Michigan's offensive schemes are much better suited for a scrambling QB than OSU's offense is.
No argument there.
Should be saved for Devin Gardner.
I disagree managing the offense is a skill that Denard definitly did not have last year, and Pat White definitly did have, he has to know when to get other involved and how to work down the field. That is probably one of the most crucial parts of his development.
He's got all of the tools, he just needs to sharpen them.
Also nice to see RR building credibility with some of the coaches down in FL. Denards old coach obviously really appreciates the fact that Denard is given an equal shot as promised. I'm sure a lot of coaches try to lure these kids on campus with empty promises and then move them around without really giving them a fair shot.
Nice to see that RR is willing to sacrifice some short-term fan interest (Denard at WR OMG!!) in the name of builiding a relationship with coaches in talented areas and long-term success.
or he's sacrificing some short-term fan interest in the name of honesty and integrity
or it's just that DRob can't be denied because he's going to be a fucking beast of a QB
When I think of a "game manager" I've always thought of a QB with a great defense and at least adequate running game who's just asked not to completely s**t the bed.
In this offense, a QB can't just be a game manager. He's literally got to be one of the two best skill position players on offense. Whoever the starter is, he's got to be a guy that can pick up alot of yards on the ground and through the air. A guy that can take a guy on one on one and actually make him miss most of the time. A guy that can be electric with the ball in his hand.
Every time the offense runs the zone read, the QB must make a split-second decision that has a huge impact on whether the play succeeds or fails. And each time that decision is "keep the ball," the QB is going to have to make an athletic move or two to turn that decision into action. We tend to think of "game manager" QBs as cerebral enough to make good decisions, but not athletic enough to make many plays on their own. Running the zone read requires that the QB make plays on his own, every time he keeps the ball. It's the nature of the offense that the QB has to be a star, or the base play of the offense won't work.
Peyton Manning. The term is one that is very broad and can apply to many types of quarterbacks so let's not latch on to one part of the OP and tear it down.
Last season, Denard had no control over the offense whatsoever. He did not have the ability/authority to make audibles at the line, he wasn't making reads (the most basic play the spread offense uses could not be called when he was in the game), and he wasn't a commanding presence on the field. He had only been with the team for a month before the season started so it would be hard to expect too much from him in the first place.
Now that he has had a year to learn the offense and develop his abilities, Michigan could take a huge leap if Denard can now manage the offense.
Pat White is certainly the type of player Robinson can aspire to be.
However for me the prototype for this type of quarterback over the last 25 years has been Doug Flutie. That's where you could be looking for comparisons. He had the skill set required in these spread quarterbacks and he showed you could succeed with it on all levels. Boston College in those years may not have run the "spread" as we know it now but they could have. Flutie took the college game by storm because he was a threat with his arm, his legs, his eyes, and his mind. The team as a whole was not that talented, though they had stars, but Flutie was a constant threat to make something happen and they registered huge wins. He was "undersized" but persevered as a quarterback in the USFL, Canada (as a superstar), and played in the NFL at or near 40.
I was never a fan of either Flutie or BC but you have to give credit where due. In my estimation Denard Robinson has the potential to be a larger, faster version.
I remember Flutie running around looking to throw, I remember Flutie throwing on the run, and I remember Flutie scrambling for yardage when a pass play broke down, but I dont rememb er Flutie carrying the rock as a desinged play.
I could see Tate becoming kind of Flutie like, but need to see him out there with his full arm strength to make it work
Acknowledged, Tate is a closer comparison to Flutie - I actually started thinking about this last year. However, the OP was about Robinson's future as an NFL quarterback. In the NFL not even Denard would run much from scrimmage - that will never happen with any NFL quarterback. It is all about movement, vision and throwing while moving, and I believe the Flutie comparison in that regard is very valid.
Further, Flutie was a running threat, though that wasn't the offense they ran. He was a running back as well as a quarterback in high school, hence the number 22. My comments were regarding the skill set and how they might translate to the NFL in addition to college.
Sorry, Flutie as the prototype for Denard? Well, neither was tall. Otherwise, I don't see it.
Just for the sake of argument...
It's reasonable that people use Pat White as the ideal RR QB, since RR's apex at WVU was with White. In 2008, White threw the ball 274 times and ran it 191 times, which translates into White running with the ball 41% of the time.
However, one can also go back to the 1998 Tulane squad with RR as OC that went 12-0 with Shaun King at QB. That year King threw the ball 364 times and ran 156 times; King ran with it exactly 30% of the time.
Last year, Forcier attempted 281 passes and ran with the ball 118 times. The percentage of times he ran with it? 29.6%, basically the same as King in 1998.
I'm not saying that Forcier's year last year was even in the same universe as King's; I'm just saying that maybe it's not a foregone conclusion that RR only wants to use a QB who's a clone of Pat White.
As I've said on other threads, I think the whole argument about who's going to start is largely irrelevant, at least at the beginning of the season. They'll both see playing time until one or the other proves that they should be getting all the snaps.
I think we're going to find that RR is capable of tailoring his play-calling depending on what type of QB he's working with. We saw it last year with Tate v. Denard and you've just shown that he's done it at his previous stops.
I am a RR supporter, but let's not oversell him too much. I saw what he did when all he had was Threet, Sheridan and Cone at QB. Not sure he did much "tailoring" of his play calling to match their abilities. He more or less called the same plays for them as he did for Forcier and Robinson last year and it was extremely painful to watch at times (not to mention for them physically). Even RR has his limitations.
Well let's be honest; Threet, Sheridan, and Cone had no abilities. I'm not sure what you want him to do in that situation.
Secondly, it was pretty clear that the play sets run by Forcier were quite different than those run by Denard. For true freshmen, I think RR called plays that utilized their individual skill sets well. Yes, last year, all Denard could do was run and as a result RR called QB draws 99% of the time he was under center, but for the most part they worked well.
Yeh I unfortunately have to disagree as well. I still love the Rod, but my biggest disappointment was this... my biggest gripe with Llyod, was that he was stuck in his ways and couldn't tailor to match his talent. We brought in RR, and it seems we have the same thing. Just different 'ways' he is stuck on. His first year it was pretty obvious, tried to force a system on talent that wasn't built for it and wasn't able to pull it off. Last year slightly better, but only because the talent inched closer to his system's needs.
just no.
You don't delay the installment of the offense because of what you have around at the time. the reason why is very simple...once you do get the right QB you don't want to be starting from scratch with the other 10 players. You want the QB to be in an environment conducive to his success, to be able to learn from those around him that are already familiar.
And just for the sake of argument, what kind of offense do you tailor for a QB who poses no threat to run and no threat to throw?....because that was the offense suitable for Threet and Sheridan.
Threet would/will be more than sufficient in a drop-back, progression read system. No passing QB can thrive with what Rodriguez runs his passing offense with today, it's completely based on the threat of the run.
This is certainly true, although I would point out that King was still a decent rushing threat, with 633 yards, 11 TD's, and a 4.1 YPC average. Regardless of the run/pass split, I still think the QB in this offense needs to be able to pick up good yards on the ground.
For sure. I've never seen any film of King, but you're right that regardless of who our QB is he needs to be able to execute the running plays in RR's system. We'll have to wait and see if TF has made progress in the running aspect of the playbook, just like we'll have to see how well DR does throwing the ball in live action with blitzing LBs trying to take his head off. It's gonna be interesting regardless.
Wrong, coaches can only do one thing. They are unable to adapt to their personnel. I'm insulted by your "facts" and "arguments."
Or not.
...he can definitely do it, if he can gain some weight without losing his speed.
Unless Drew Brees is able to single-handedly make it OK for shorter QB's to play in the NFL, Denard probably won't get the opportunity to prove that he can play QB at that level. I'm one of those who thinks that Denard has, or will have in a couple more years, the mental and physical tools to be a QB at any level. Sadly, as long as NFL "wisdom" dictates that QB's be a minimum of 6-4 and preferably more like 6-6, I can't imagine him getting an equal chance to compete for a QB job.
Just as Flutie really never got a chance to play any significant downs in the NFL until he was well past his prime, and then only out of desperation, I can't see any coach deviating from the squished-in, typical NFL offense and its stale "adages" enough to trust someone who isn't 6-4 or taller with a starting job. So, I'm guessing Denard becomes a "slash" in the NFL.
Denard might never get a fair chance in the NFL, but he is getting one at the University of Michigan, and I think he will make RR very happy that he kept his promise. When it's all said and done, Denard may end his career as one of the most beloved players to have ever worn the Maize and Blue.
This guy was a athlete coming out of high school.When he got on campus he had to learn on the fly,thats why he had the bad passing stats.But after a off-season he looks like a QB.This kid is going to be a serious dual-threat QB,the big ten better hope he isn't the starter.Can you image Denard Robinson starting for the next 3 years?
If he can beat out Tate and Devin Gardner, he'll probably be a remarkable QB.
I don't think I've ever heard a bad word about this kid. Rock on, Denard.
talent is their physically
question is about quarterback mechanics, and reading defenses !